Moderating effect of error source on the continued influence of retracted disclosure on individual investors’ judgements

Abstract

I conduct an experiment, using M.B.A. students as proxies for individual investors, to examine the impact of error source (management versus press) on the continued influence of retracted disclosures. Given the increasing role of third parties in disseminating information, it is important to examine the moderating effect of error source, a factor not previously emphasized in prior research on the continued influence effect. The experimental results show that investors are more susceptible to the continued influence effect when the error is from the press (rather than from the management), adding to the concern raised by policy makers over the quality of information provided by outside organizations. Additional analysis reveals that the differential effect found is mediated by the level of scepticism experienced by the participants. Contrary to previous research, my results provide evidence that post-exposure scepticism may moderate the continued influence effect, under the conditions of task familiarity and clarity of actual error. Implications for regulators and researchers are also discussed.